testit-mcp-server

create_test_plan

Creates a new test plan with status New in TestIT, setting name, dates, tags, and project, with extra fields passed through the payload.

Instructions

Create a test plan (status New). Extra CreateTestPlanApiModel fields can be passed in "payload".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`tags`	No	Tag names.
`build`	No
`endDate`	No	ISO date-time.
`payload`	No
`projectId`	No	Project UUID (defaults to TESTIT_PROJECT_ID).
`startDate`	No	ISO date-time.
`attributes`	No
`description`	No
`productName`	No
`projectName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the default status of New and the existence of an escape-hatch payload field. It does not say what happens on duplicate names, how payload keys interact with top-level fields that conflict, or what is returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action and resulting status are front-loaded before the payload escape hatch. Nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action, the default state, and the payload mechanism, which is a reasonable minimum. It leaves several parameters and the post-creation result (e.g. whether the new plan's id is returned) unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is low at 36% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate; it only clarifies the most ambiguous one, "payload" (extra CreateTestPlanApiModel fields). That is the highest-value clarification an agent could not infer, but name, build, attributes, productName and projectName remain undocumented in both places.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ("Create a test plan") and adds the resulting state ("status New"), so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as create_test_plan_clone or update_test_plan, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that a project context is needed), and no mention of when to pick this over create_test_plan_clone. The only implied guidance is that this creates a fresh plan rather than modifying one, which the agent must infer.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server